Search results

Research serves to elucidate and tackle real-world issues (e.g. capitalizing opportunities and solving problems). Critical to research is the concept of validity, which gauges the extent to which research is adequate and appropriate in representing what it intends to measure and test. In this vein, this article aims to present a typology of validity to aid researchers in this endeavor.

Employing a synthesis approach informed by the 3Es of expertise, experience, and exposure, this article maintains a sharp focus on delineating the concept of validity and presenting its typology.

This article emphasizes the importance of validity and explains how and when different types of validity can be established. First and foremost, content validity and face validity are prerequisites assessed before data collection, whereas convergent validity and discriminant validity come into play during the evaluation of the measurement model post-data collection, while nomological validity and predictive validity are crucial in the evaluation of the structural model following the evaluation of the measurement model. Additionally, content, face, convergent and discriminant validity contribute to construct validity as they pertain to concept(s), while nomological and predictive validity contribute to criterion validity as they relate to relationship(s). Last but not least, content and face validity are established by humans, thereby contributing to the assessment of substantive significance, whereas convergent, discriminant, nomological and predictive validity are established by statistics, thereby contributing to the assessment of statistical significance.

This article contributes to a deeper understanding of validity’s multifaceted nature in research, providing a practical guide for its application across various research stages.

The purpose of this paper, a critical reflection, is twofold. First, by comprehensively reviewing scale development procedures in hospitality research, a concerning lack of nomological validity testing is demonstrated. Second, the need for nomological validity testing is discussed and both conceptually and empirically reasoned.

This research systematically reviews scale development studies in three leading hospitality journals, including Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management and International Journal of Hospitality Management over ten years (2012–2021) to analyze the completeness of scale development procedures. Specifically, the authors evaluate whether the reviewed studies engage in testing the nomological and predictive validity of the newly developed measures.

The results indicate a concerning gap in the current practices in hospitality research. Specifically, only 33.3% of the examined studies assess nomological validity. These findings collectively underscore the need for improving the comprehensiveness of scale development processes in hospitality research.

The study offers important implications for hospitality researchers. The paper provides an extensive discussion on the importance and benefits of testing for nomological validity in scale development studies, contributing to the completeness and consistency of scale development procedures in the hospitality discipline.

This research critically assesses prevalent, and widely accepted, scale development procedures in hospitality research. This research empirically demonstrates the neglect of nomological validity issues in scale development practices in hospitality research. Scale development is an essential scientific practice used to create a research instrument in a field of study, improving our understanding of a specific phenomenon and contributing to knowledge creation. Considering the significance of scale development in advancing the field of hospitality research, the validation procedures involved in the scale development processes are of utmost importance and should be thoroughly applied.

The creation of positive social change (PSC) is considered the primary success criterion when evaluating social enterprise performance. However, despite a proliferation of PSC-measurements, their empirical validity and applicability in emerging economies remain largely unclear. The quantitative study examines the validity of the PSC-measurement approaches proposed by Bloom and Smith (2010; Bloom and Smith approach [BSA]) and Weaver (2020b; Weaver approach [WA]) in South Africa.

Investigating a representative sample of 347 social entrepreneurs from Gauteng and Limpopo provinces, the authors use questionnaire data to explore the factorial, convergent and discriminant validity of both PSC-measurement approaches. Statistically, this is done by applying factorial and correlation analyses.

The results yield acknowledgeable differences. BSA has a high factorial and convergent validity, while its discriminant validity remains doubtful. For WA, problems concerning factorial validity occur.

Despite limited generalizability, the authors provide a first guideline for scholars regarding the empirical validity of BSA and WA outside the context of developed economies.

The current study sheds light on the validity of two PSC-measurement approaches in an emerging economy context. This way, the authors contribute to the field by addressing the scarcity of empirical research and the restricted scope of developed economies regarding PSC-measurement.

The article aims to present the results of adapting the team boosting behaviors (TBB) scale to Polish cultural conditions and validating it.

The research methodology consisted of three steps. In the first step, I translated the TBB scale into Polish using a rigorous back-translation method. Next, to assess content validity, nine domain experts reviewed the initial version of the instrument for clarity and relevance. Finally, I applied the scale to a sample of 532 team members and underwent thorough psychometric testing to assess construct validity. I employed structural equation modeling (SEM) with the partial least squares (PLS) factor-based algorithm technique for confirmatory factor analysis to assess the scale’s reliability and validity.

After development, the Polish version of the TBB scale kept its three sub-scale structures. However, the validation process led to a slight reduction in the number of test items compared to the original scale.

The findings imply that the Polish version of the scale is a valid and reliable tool for assessing TBB. However, I recommend additional studies to confirm this instrument’s structure.

The results confirmed the reliability and relevance of the tool for measuring TBBs in Polish cultural conditions. The tool provides the basis for implementing further research with the TBB construct in Poland and internationally.

A methodological approach is required that complements studies based on surveys, providing a perspective with greater truthfulness and coverage. The study aims to develop a methodology to validate psychological/managerial constructs using data from Google Trends, taking as a case study a critical thinking (CT) scale in organizational domains previously supported by survey data.

The developed methodology consists of eight stages, in which the following is integrated: (1) Internet search interest data (19 Spanish-speaking countries); (2) deductive research processes (e.g. theoretical model, linguistic manifestations, fieldwork, data matrix, analysis statistical, reporting); (3) psychometric properties (e.g. construct validity, criterion validity, reliability) and (4) objective data to examine criterion validity (e.g. unemployment rate).

The application of the methodology produces evidence that supports the reliability (Cronbach’s alpha, Guttman’s λ₄), construct validity (intra-correlations and correlations with reference variables: “entrepreneurship,” “critical thinking,” “soccer,” “beer,” “pornography”) and criterion validity (prediction of unemployment rate) of the CT scale.

The methodology makes it possible to support or invalidate the quality of construct measurement scales by planning, capturing and processing data available on the internet.

This manuscript is useful for research in business management (and related areas), which is intensive in the use of psychological/managerial constructs.

The methodology uses a new type of evidence; it is noninvasive, usually more truthful than responses to surveys, and has greater coverage of people participating indirectly in the study.

With the diversification of professional values, an increasing number of individuals voluntarily choose positions that demand less than their personal knowledge, skills and educational background, a phenomenon known as voluntary overqualification. This study aims to explore the reasons for discerning the motivations driving voluntary overqualification, define its conceptual content and develop the measurement scale for voluntary overqualification.

Through five phases, and using both qualitative and quantitative approaches, the authors constructed a scale comprising three dimensions: earnings-oriented, life-oriented and meaning-oriented to measure voluntary overqualification. Following the steps of scale development, the conceptual connotation and structural dimensions of voluntary overqualification were systematically coded and mined based on grounded theory. The scale’s reliability and validity were measured through exploratory and validation factor analyses. Finally, the validity of the voluntary overqualification scale was verified through the selection of professional identity and subjective well-being.

This study defined connotations and structural dimensions of voluntary overqualification based on grounded theory, resulting in a measurement scale with three dimensions and 13 items. These dimensions include earnings-, life- and meaning-oriented voluntary overqualification. Empirical testing of predictive validity used professional identity and subjective well-being as outcome variables.

This study provides a theoretical foundation and an effective measurement tool for subsequent research in voluntary overqualification by focusing on a new type of voluntary overqualification, defining its connotations and developing a complete set of scales.

Competition in the modern, knowledge-based economy is utterly pendant on innovation, rendering it indispensable in virtually every organisation. Knowledge workers, therefore, must remain vigilant, spanning novel ways to innovate. Given the relevance of innovation orientation (IO) in knowledge work, it is imperative to possess an extensive understanding of the concept. Therefore, this study aims to develop and validate a measurement scale to gauge employees’ IO.

Considering that the instruments now in existence exhibit insufficiency for measuring knowledge workers’ IO in its entirety, the mixed-method approach used in this study draws on both qualitative and quantitative findings across various studies, to address this problem. This study has been organised into five stages: item generation, scale purification, scale refinement, nomological validation and generalizability.

This study establishes and verifies a second-order, reflective–reflective IO measure founded on multiple samples, encompassing the dimensions of creative orientation, learning orientation, first-mover orientation, trust orientation and agility orientation. The resultant IO scale serves as a robust and reliable tool that is capable of being leveraged to explain, assess and enhance IO for knowledge workers.

The rigorous methodology used in this scale development procedure serves as a benchmark for prospective scale development methodologists. From a managerial stance, this study serves managers/leaders concerning how to foster an innovation-oriented work environment to uncover employees’ hidden innovators. Organisations can leverage this study to discover, cultivate and capitalise on knowledge workers’ IO.

Although there exists an abundance of research on IO viewed from an institutional standpoint, research centred on the IO of knowledge workers is scarce. To bridge this gap, this study has developed and validated a scale for measuring knowledge workers’ IO.

Given the scientific and practical difficulties inherent in measuring and comparing socioeconomic deprivation (SED), and the further complexity added in cross national measurements, the main aim of this paper was to check the validity of SED measures used in PISA 2018 dataset. The SED measure used in PISA 2018 was the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status abbreviated as the ESCS index. This assessment was important as PISA analysis is based on variables derived from this instrument and the ESCS index and these reports influence and reflect international and comparative education policies and practice.

This study critically evaluates the socioeconomic status measures in the PISA 2018 dataset, focusing on their convergent validity and cross-national comparability. Using responses from over 600,000 students in 73 countries, it examines the validity of SES indicators and their comparability across countries. The study employs principal component analysis to construct local SES measures and compares them with the existing Economic, Social, and Cultural Status (ESCS) index. It explores the relationship between these SES measures and academic achievement in reading, science, and mathematics, aiming to understand their predictive validity in diverse educational settings. Statistical analyses were conducted using the IEA’s IDB Analyser and SPSS, ensuring robustness and generalisability across the diverse participant countries.

Our research findings challenge the assumed superiority of local measures over broader constructs like the Economic, Social, and Cultural Status (ESCS). It suggests that standardised measures like ESCS may provide more reliable predictions of academic achievement across various educational contexts, underscoring the complex relationship between SES measures and academic performance.

Our novel analysis shows that local and cross-national SED measures are poorly correlated. Our findings raise questions about the measures' validity while acknowledging the methodological challenges. We provide empirical evidence to support ongoing debates on the topic.

The present study examines the incremental validity of engaging leadership in predicting five fundamental organizational outcomes (followers’ organizational commitment, work engagement, task performance, organizational citizenship behaviour and counterproductive work behaviour) over transformational leadership.

The study is cross-sectional in nature and a survey questionnaire was used for data collection. Data were collected from 402 workers in different fields. Hierarchical multiple regression was used in order to determine the incremental validity of engaging leadership.

Our results indicated that engaging leadership contributes additional variance over and above transformational leadership in predicting the five organizational outcomes.

The results of the study suggest that combining engaging leadership interventions with transformational leadership interventions may lead to better results.

The present study supports the empirical distinction of engaging leadership from transformational leadership, addressing possible concerns regarding construct redundancy.

This study aims to develop and validate a scale to measure Teacher Entrepreneurial Behavior (TEB), which encapsulates the behaviors teachers employ to identify and amplify innovation in schools. TEB are catalysts for innovation, navigating their peers through risks and building trust, which empowers the collective to transcend structural constraints and pioneer new educational initiatives. Despite the importance of TEB, there is a notable absence of a well-validated measurement instrument.

Drawing on existing empirical TEB studies, this study conducts four interconnected studies following scale-development procedures. The content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, and external validity of the proposed scale were assessed using exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, invariance analysis, and regression analysis.

The result is a multidimensional TEB model featuring 15 items with a good model fit. The TEB scale comprises four factors: Advocating Innovation, Seeking Resources, Cultivating Cohesiveness, and Mitigating Risk.

This study represents a rigorous attempt to develop and validate a reliable instrument for measuring TEB. It provides a validated tool for future research aimed at understanding the nature of TEB as an independent construct and associated dynamics. Accurate measurement is important for the robustness and replicability of research. Furthermore, the insights gained on TEB scale can significantly inform both the preparation and evaluation of teacher leaders by emphasizing the importance of entrepreneurial behaviors in promoting teachers’ collaboration and actualizing innovative initiative.